Here are some of the ways I go about trying to convince people of things. I have no idea whether it actually works or not.

Attacking someone else's thought process has the problems the OP observes. So instead, I try to explain my thought process. The goal is that they will say, "hey, I can get on board with what this guy is saying." Even if they aren't ready to get on board, at least they might be more open-minded towards my position for the future, and be willing to "agree to disagree" (yes, it's a fallacy, but don't point that out). I want to gain some of their epistemic trust.

Even when I disagree, I do the following things:

• Emphasize areas of agreement

• Personalize and subjectivize my disagreement: "Well, in my view...", "here's how it looks to me", "what worries me is this", "I can't quite get on board with that"

• Use analogies, rather than pointing out fallacies. (Though be careful picking analogies, or you can get whole conversation trees discussing the aptness of the analogies.)

• Respond to what I actually think their argument is, rather than trying to nitpick or trap them in what they actually said.

• Point out implications of what they are saying, and ask them if they agree with those implications.

I also try to project a likable, trustworthy character that people can feel is a "good person." Liking is an important tool of persuasion. You see, most people cannot consider arguments separately from people. By coming off as a likable and credible, I correct for people's biases against views they don't initially agree with. I want to minimize people automatically throwing out my arguments simply because they don't like the way I come off. Of course, I can't please everyone, and not everyone is going to like me. (Some people will consider my debate style passive-aggressive, and with them, all I can do is throw in a bit of sarcasm or anger.)

Luckily, since I have high Agreeableness and Openness, most of these strategies I describe are pretty authentic and fit my personality, most of the time. I have text files full of snippets of sarcastic stuff that I don't post, because nowadays I try to post what I would post if I looked at the thread tomorrow, rather than what I feel like posting in the heat of the moment.

I could probably go even farther towards projecting a likable character, and being emotionally relatable. But that could get smarmy, and I'm not always in the mood. So the character I project probably comes off as more cerebral than I seem in real life.

I won't claim the strategies of persuasion that I use to be successful or ideal; they are simply the habits I've fallen into over the years. Also, what I do in discussions where I'm only trying to convince onlookers, not the other person, can be different. YMMV.

So.... am I using "Dark Arts"?